With reporting by Rachel Weiner

Last week, John McCain proclaimed that he knew how to win wars. Today, he's taking it a step further, telling voters that he not only knows how to capture and bring to justice Osama bin Laden, but is going to do it.

Appearing on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the Arizona Republican was reminded that he had vowed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice and was asked how he would differ in that task from President Bush.

Initially saying that he would not "telegraph" the specifics, McCain declared, "Look, I know the area, I've been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice... We will do it, I know how to do it."

Proclaiming that he will capture the elusive terrorist leader -- and knows how to do it -- is a fairly bold assertion and leads to the question: what information is McCain holding back from the Bush administration?

But the Senator has made broad foreign policy promises before. This past week he told a crowd in Albuquerque, New Mexico: "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars... And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that."

In today's CNN interview, McCain suggested that a Nuremberg Trial-style hearing for bin Laden would be appropriate upon his capture.

"We have various options. The Nuremberg Trials are certainly an example of the kind of tribunal that we could move forward with. I don't think we'd have any difficulty in devising an international -- internationally supported mechanism that would mete out justice. There's no problem there."

Early in the campaign, it should be noted, McCain went hard after Barack Obama for saying that Bin Laden should not be a "martyr." Obama also suggested Nuremburg as a model -- to which McCain replied that Obama didn't understand the reference.

John McCain was struck with a bit of unfortunate timing on Friday when his speech touting the security benefits of the surge was preceded by news of the death of eight civilians, including a pro-American leader of the Sunni Awakening, in a suicide bombing in Iraq.

Appearing at the American GI Forum in Denver, Colorado, McCain turned to a theme he has hit on all week: the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq were instrumental in nourishing the turnaround of Iraq's Anbar province.

"If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically," the Senator's prepared remarks read. "Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheiks who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely."

Sadly, the day before the address, a female suicide bomber set off a massive bomb that targeted and killed one of those Sunni leaders that McCain referenced. As the New York Times reported on Friday:

"At first, a car bomb seemed the only explanation for the huge blast on Thursday on one of Baquba's main thoroughfares that killed a pro-American Sunni militia leader, an Iraqi police captain, a local politician, and five other people... This time the target was Naim Abdul Jabbar al-Dulaimi, the leader of an Awakening militia group in western Baquba, according to Abu Muhammed, one of the militia leaders. Mr. Dulaimi was killed, he said, when the bomb detonated at 6 p.m. in front of the Rukn al-Azam restaurant, a popular hangout for Baquba policemen nestled among a crowded marketplace."

Dulaimi's assassination symbolizes some of the difficulties McCain -- and Obama -- face in campaigning around the Iraq war. How the voters in the United States will respond to violence overseas is impossible to determine. And certainly each candidate has base-appeasing arguments to make as to their positions on the surge. For McCain, however, this is the second time he has claimed that the surge protected individuals behind the Anbar Awakening only to be confronted by a pro-American figure's death.

Earlier this week, the Arizona Republican's campaign claimed that had "Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda." Their reference -- Abdul Sattar Abu Risha - had actually been assassinated by al-Qaeda in the very midst of the surge. Sattar's work, prior to then, was hailed by U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

An aide to John McCain synthesized the Senator's two favorite topics into one political thesis today: his support for off-shore drilling and his policy proposals on Iraq.

"This is the domestic policy equivalent of the surge," said Nancy Pfotenhauer, "you have Sen. McCain looking at a situation, seeing the Congress not willing to solve a problem and calling for a change of policy... Then you have Sen. Obama who has an ironclad unwillingness because he won't risk alienating his political base."

Clearly, the McCain campaign is going to great efforts to paint the Senator as a "High Noon" type: the principled antagonist in ideological fights. But it's hard not to consider Pfotenhauer -- whose comments came during a conference call with bloggers -- in the context of McCain's history on offshore drilling. Three weeks before he began advocating the benefits of the policy, he told a town hall gathering that it would provide no short-term relief. Moreover, every reasonable economist - including many on McCain's list of endorsers - doesn't believe offshore drilling will have an immediate affect on gas prices.

Nevertheless, it is quite evident that McCain and his aides see energy as a key issue around which the election will be decided. By comparing his call for off-shore drilling to his advocacy of the surge his aides are deliberately attempting to raise the stakes of the debate.

Later in the conference call, Pfotenhauer was asked whether, in McCain's devotion to achieving energy independence, he would move to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"I have heard nothing that would make me believe that he is," she replied. "Sen. McCain has, throughout his life and public career, been a well-known conservationist. He happens to believe there is a reason the word refuge is in ANWR's name. And he doesn't believe at this time that drilling in ANWR is necessary. There are 20 billion barrels off the gulf, 15 billion off Alaska... there is a lot we can access which would send an immediate and direct signal to the international community that we can handle our supply problems and we can get control over our supply problems rather than be at the mercy of OPEC countries."

John McCain's famously cozy relationship with the press is getting a bit testy. Taking questions in Columbus, Ohio, on Thursday the Arizona Republican blew off Wall Street Journal reporter Elizabeth Holmes, right after she stated her name and affiliation.

"Who else has a question," McCain interjected, before calling on a journalist with CNN. (For some comedy, watch Sen. Lindsay Graham's face on the far right of the screen after McCain shoots down Holmes.)

Later in the press availability, McCain went back to Holmes for her question. But another reporter told the Huffington Post that the brush off was legitimate and the message was clear: "He was definitively dissing her."

Holmes did not return a request for comment, but it should be noted that the exchange occurred after her name appeared on two recent articles that the McCain campaign likely viewed as critical. On Wednesday, Holmes co-authored a piece titled "News Coverage Of Obama Irks McCain Team."

"John McCain used to jokingly call the media 'my base.' Now, he and his aides are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they see as a growing press infatuation with his rival, Barack Obama."

That same day, her byline was on an article titled: "Consensus May Be Nearing on Iraq Pullout," undoubtedly a foreign policy frame that the McCain campaign is loathe to acknowledge.

The relationship between McCain and the fourth estate has come under some strain during the past week. The Senator, who has a lengthy track record of respect for the press, has unleashed his aides to publicly air grievances with what they see as fawning coverage of Barack Obama. This past week, the campaign handed out JV Press Passes to reporters who didn't cover the Illinois Democrat's trip overseas.

At the same time, Obama - who is much more closed-off to the media than McCain - has, himself, begun to stir the ire of the press pool. The New Republic reported Thursday night that the Senator's staff had been stifling their inquiries and airing complaints about coverage.

Reporters are grumbling more and more that the campaign is acting like the Prom Queen. They gripe that it is "arrogant" and "control[ling]," and the campaign's own belief that Obama is poised to make history isn't endearing, either. The press certainly helped Obama get so far so fast; the question is, how far can he get if his campaign alienates them?

Last week, the Democratic National Committee blasted out to reporters a memo of selected quotes designed to show the John McCain not only making unrealized predictions on Iraq, but also parroting "Bush talking points," praising "Donald Rumsfeld's conduct of the war," and presenting a far-too-rosy outlook for U.S. troops.

Is it fair? A comprehensive look at more than 200 press releases, statements and interviews conducted by McCain from the start of the war through the beginning of the troop surge (which the Huffington Post did) shows that the Senator - as his campaign has frequently reminded voters - was quick to note a lack of troops on the ground. McCain was also critical of Rumsfeld and (to a lesser extent) Bush. But his pre-war predictions were drastically off-base. And when things began to turn sour he quickly attempted to re-write history, blaming the administration for not being honest with the American public when he himself had offered similarly optimistic assurances.

Like the majority of his congressional brethren, McCain was dismissive of the potential pitfalls of war in Iraq. During a March 2003 appearance on Hardball -- which McCain's Senate office touted in a press release -- the Arizona Republican was asked if he believed that "the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?"

"Absolutely," he replied. "Absolutely... Not only that, they'll be relieved that he's not in the neighborhood because he has invaded his neighbors on several occasions."

The Senator would similarly brush away concerns about a lack of allies, citing America's intervention in Kosovo. We went in "without the United Nations," McCain said, and were welcomed for putting a stop to "the slaughter of Muslims."

After the U.S. overtook Baghdad and the armed forces made quick security gains, McCain expressed even greater confidence in the Bush administration's strategy. Asked by Bill O'Reilly during a May 2003 appearance whether he would have done anything differently in the run-up to the war, the Senator replied: "Nothing... The president has handled this, in my view, skillfully."

O'Reilly pressed further: "Are you confident that after we occupy Iraq, allied forces occupy Iraq, that they will start to throw out all of these anthrax vials, V.X. gas, are you confident that's going to come out?"

"I am confident that that will come out," McCain replied. "Bill, he had too much unaccounted for in 1998. There were tons of nerve gas and other chemicals and other weapons that he just never accounted for."

Those weapons never did "come out," although McCain was hardly alone in his suspicions.

Within months, McCain's disposition had begun to change. Following a trip to Iraq in August 2003, he started sounding the alarm about a lack of troop presence and promised to "mount a heavy campaign" to raise numbers in meetings with Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials.

"We need to tell the American people directly, and I think they'll support it,' he said at the time. "We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I'm convinced we need to spend a lot more money.'"

Soon after his trip, McCain began to disparage the people he had once praised. The run-up to the war that the Arizona Republican had described as faultless was now ripe for critique. The pre-war concerns that he had was blithely ignored he now raised as if they were unique policy outlooks.

"Should we have done things differently?" McCain wrote in a June 2004 article, titled "Hard Truths," in The New Republic. "Of course. We should have worked harder before the war to get more European allies on board and offered greater political support to those nations that did join our coalition. We should have invaded with more troops, acted more quickly to stop looting, stabilized key cities, secured arms depots and borders, and established checkpoints in key areas. We should have handed power more rapidly to Iraqis. But were we wrong to invade? No."

And yet, for all his repentance about the invasion, McCain frequently insisted that U.S. forces were close to turning the corner. Before his New Republic essay, the Senator wrote an op-ed in the Arizona Republic in which he praised the capturing of Saddam Hussein as the moment U.S. troops "cut off the head" of the insurgent resistance.

"By ending the possibility of Saddam's return to power, we have made it much more difficult for Saddam's thugs to motivate their fellow Iraqis to attack coalition forces in his name," he wrote. "We have defeated their strategic goal of regime restoration. On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said that the capture of Saddam had not made America safer. I strongly disagree."

In a well-remembered speech he gave to the American Enterprise Institute in October 2005, McCain declared that Iraqi elections signaled the end-point for "terrorists" and their "ilk."

A pattern emerged. At the same time the Senator was offering sunny forecasts for Iraq's future, he was presenting himself as a realist on the war's difficulties. Months before the AEI address in which he framed the elections as a turning point, and well more than a year after he hailed the capture of Saddam, McCain admonished the Bush administration for being overly optimistic about those exact same events.

"I certainly understand [the public's] frustration," he told NBC's Tim Russert, "and, of course, too often we've been told that--the American people have been told that we're at a turning point, whether it be the capture of Saddam Hussein, or Uday and Qusay, or the elections, what the American people should have been told, and should be told... [is that] it's long, it's hard, it's tough. It's very tough."

Despite these inconsistencies - and certainly Barack Obama has had his share of misstatements, policy changes, and rhetorical blunders on Iraq - McCain has been relatively unfailing in his call for more troops in Iraq. In a February 2005, appearance on Meet The Press, he argued that the "numbers" were "probably enough" and that it "was about two years ago at the beginning when we didn't have enough troops." But in and around that time - and more vocally during the run up to the surge - McCain was sounding the loudest alarm about the lack of armed forces on the ground.

Taken as a whole, a review of McCain's public statements on Iraq suggests that, like much of the country, he held an overly optimistic view of the prosecution. When things turned sour, he deflected much of the blame on a Bush administration that he once insisted had done everything right. But, whether it was flexibility or flip-flopping, he has also demonstrated a willingness to revise his judgments. In a March 2003 Nightline Town Hall, McCain was asked whether a long-term presence of U.S. troops in the Middle East was something the U.S. could stomach. The answer would seem anathema to his foreign policy today.

"We're not going to keep our guard people permanently there," he told Ted Koppel. "We are certainly, certainly not going to keep troops indefinitely in Arab countries. Everybody knows that... there's a huge difference between having our troops deployed to a makeshift kind of a situation in an Arab country, than it is in the comfortable surroundings of a base in Europe. And we have called up thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of reservists. And we simply can't keep them on indefinitely. And it's just not proper or appropriate to do that."

Five days after John McCain met with and applauded education reform in New York City, the city's mayor is set to repay the favor.

On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the most the high-profile independent politicos in the nation, will commend McCain for his willingness to buck party lines on education policy.

"In this speech like in others, when people step up on issues the mayor is going to applaud them on it,' said Lindsay Ellenbogen a spokesperson for Bloomberg. "And we are optimistic that Sen. McCain will continue to step up on education."

This past Sunday, McCain met privately with school chancellor Joel Klein during a visit to New York City, in which he praised the his newest initiative, the Education Equality Project - an effort to achieve scholastic reform and racial parity by focusing on teacher pay, accountability, and parental options. The measure is a big tent effort, with Reverend Al Sharpton already a backer. And Bloomberg, while not endorsing McCain, is scheduled to applaud his willingness to come on board.

Friday's address, which will occur at the Minnesota Independence Party and was first reported by ABC News, marks yet another deft step made by Bloomberg in the heat of the presidential campaign. The mayor has been complimentary of both McCain and Barack Obama, assumed the role as a bridge between the two candidates, and kept his name in the heat of the vice presidential sweepstakes -- all while maintaining his independence.

"He has been all of the above," said Craig Swaggert, state party chair of the Minnesota Independence Party. "But I think the biggest role will be to keep the focus on the important issues and the attention on the bulk of Americans who are independent."

Early in the general election, Bloomberg found himself aligned with the presumptive Democratic nominee. Last month, for instance, he denounced the "whisper campaigns" against Obama during a speech in Florida (offering the candidate a bit of aid within skeptical Jewish communities). On several occasions since then, he preceded the Illinois Democrat in tackling pertinent campaign issues.

In July, the mayor spoke at the NAACP convention, outlining new measures to combat poverty, including changing the federal poverty line. A few days later, Obama endorsed Bloomberg's plan.

Around that same time, both figures - with the mayor speaking first - took nearly identical stances in welcoming the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the D.C. handgun ban.

The commonalities between Bloomberg and Obama and Bloomberg and McCain has cast attention on issues that normally receive short shrift during a presidential campaign. But they have also resulted in increased speculation that the mayor could be in line for a vice presidential nod. This past week, Washington Post columnist David Broder listed Bloomberg as McCain's top three choices, citing the need for financial wizardry. Similar speculation (though less seriously regarded) has developed around the idea of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket.

Doug Bailey, a long-time Republican consultant who started Unity 08 - a vehicle to encourage politically independent figures, including Bloomberg, to run for office - proclaimed it unlikely that any V.P. position was in the offing. He did, however, see the mayor's role in the current campaign as compelling, arguing that Bloomberg's policy proposals, statements, and even personal leanings could play a major role in determining the next president.

"My impression is that he has a long time friendship and affinity for McCain, has known him for many years and they like and enjoy one other. On the other hand he has gotten know Obama quite well and likes him a lot. And his differences with McCain may be on some issues and his differences with Obama are on experience. His attitudes towards the two people are both very positive but for different reasons," said Bailey. "If you were to list people that the public might, sort of say 'that guy understands the economy,' you would probably put Michael Bloomberg very high on that list. In that sense his support for one candidate or the other would be significant."

John McCain is still playing catch up to Barack Obama.

As the Illinois Democrat speaks before the picturesque Victory Column in Berlin today, the Arizona Republican is doing a slightly less exciting form of German outreach. He is having a lunch meeting with small business leaders at a German restaurant in German Village, Columbus, Ohio.

The presidential race, it seems has boiled down to who has the greatest German appeal. McCain's appearance at Schmidts' restaurant, a "Sausage Haus" comes after the RNC launched several advertisements in towns named Berlin.

Among the items he may have ordered include: Sauerkraut-Bratwurst Balls, Hoffbrau Schnitzel, or the Bratwurst, voted the "Best Wurst" by Columbus Monthly.

There is wide-spread acknowledgment, even within the party itself, that the Republican brand is currently poisonous. Faced with massive losses in November, GOP leadership has green-lighted a save-yourself mentality, allowing its endangered members to go against the party line if it means helping their electoral chances.

But if the situation seems bad on the electoral level, insiders warn that it's even worse when you get down to infrastructure and machinery. Facing an avalanche of losses, the GOP is stuck with an antiquated system of fundraising, a tired leadership, and a president many Americans loathe.

"There is a phenomenal arrogance like a fog that has clouded people's thinking and ability to see what is real," said Nicole Sexton, a longtime Republican fundraiser and former Director of Finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "We have to go down in history as some of the worst messengers. And President Bush has been horrible. Everything he does deems calculated and insincere. The same was true with Bill Clinton but he at least had the ability to seem sincere. With Bush, people are throwing stones and tomatoes at him [and he hasn't changed]."

Sexton, the author of the new book, "Party Favors" (a fictionalized look at the life of a GOP fundraiser), offered a fairly dire assessment of the party in which she used to be a major figure. A native of New Orleans, much of her scorn was saved for Bush, who she derided for his ignorance of the scope Hurricane Katrina's devastation.

"He should have been in a row boat in the middle of the 9th ward, helping families," she said before adding, when prompted, "like Sean Penn... Instead, there were all these resources put to his press conference."

As the chief financial officer for the NRSC, Sexton did not put the blame for the GOP's current problems strictly at Bush's doorstep. She talked openly (later admitting that her former colleagues weren't too pleased with her frankness) about how political figures she had once admired had become consumed by the prospect of reelection.

"We need some new blood in the party," she said. "But the problem is that the younger candidates, like John Sununu, are real in danger of losing their seats."

The GOP's outreach is also aging. "We are a direct marketing and a direct mail party and that's a dinosaur in the fundraising world," she said. "Just look at our presidential candidates [this cycle]. Huckabee was the only one that came close to have an Internet presence like Obama. All his money came from the web and he was able to stay in the race till the final hour. Giuliani, I don't know if he was seeing straight... For McCain to literally have imploded twice and still be the candidate is a phenomenal statement about the party."

If anyone should know about the intersection of money and politics it is Sexton. Starting as an intern for the White House Office of National Service she quickly rose to prominence within the sometimes-sordid world of political fundraising. At her post at the NRSC from 2002 through 2005, she played an instrumental role in helping the GOP regain control of the Senate, only to grow disillusioned. "I realized I really didn't know these people," she said. "I was a cog in the machine and hadn't connected with any of the candidates I was helping elect."

She also grew wary of the role that fundraising played. Noting that politicians were spending disproportionate amounts of time raising cash, she called for the system to be scrapped in favor of caps on the amount candidates could raise as a whole (not to be confused with a cap on the size of the individual donations) and restrictions on the time period during which they could raise cash.

Now employed by the ONE Campaign, Sexton still is connected to, and eagerly following, the GOP. Before ending the interview she predicted that her party would lose five seats in the Senate this cycle -- an optimistic estimate in a down year. She also projected that McCain would eventually best Obama though her admiration for the latter's political prowess were clearly evident.

"Usually the youth will go to politically rallies and concerts and never show up and vote and they certainly never contributed" she said of the Illinois Democrat's appeal to younger voters. "These people now are leaving college and giving to Obama. It is phenomenal. If you are giving up your beer money for three nights it means you are invested in the guy."

The McCain campaign has a new web ad out placing Barack Obama, for the second time, side-by-side with a foreign dictator. This time, it's Fidel Castro.

A Democrat in south Florida alerted the Huffington Post to the image, which shows Obama and Castro, profiled side-by-side, above a quote from the Cuban leader praising the Illinois Democrat as "the most advanced candidate."

Picture association is a time-honored tool in political campaigns (think: former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland having his mug pasted beside Osama Bin Laden's during the 2002 congressional elections). And indeed, this is not the first time that the presumptive Republican nominee has used the tactic. Early in June, McCain's campaign launched a web ad placing Obama beside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad underneath the caption: "Is it OK to unconditionally meet with anti-American foreign leaders?"

Unlike that spot, the Castro advertisement actually uses the foreign leader's words against Obama. But the quote is misleading in regards to the actual political dynamics in play. For starters, since Obama became the de facto nominee, Castro has been critical of his candidacy, arguing that he has not called for serious alterations to U.S.-Cuban relations and would willingly allow the island nation to suffer from hunger. Obama, meanwhile, has criticized Castro as a repeated abuser of human rights and a tyrant whose time has passed.

Moreover, the guilt by endorser meme is something that even McCain has disavowed. When questions started being raised about his supporter, John Hagee, the Senator washed his hands of the pastor's controversial statements. "When he endorses me," McCain said, months before he rejected Hagee's endorsement, "it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes."

For now, it seems the McCain camp is using its Castro ad on sites catering to South Florida - obviously a politically important geographic region. An email to McCain staffers went unanswered, but if readers have any more information, please send us tips.

Senator Chuck Schumer whetted the palate of many Democrats today when he suggested, for the first time of the election cycle, that their dream of a 60-seat majority in the U.S. Senate could be within the party's grasp.

"I know you'll ask me, can we get to sixty?" the New York Democrat and head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said on Wednesday. "And I'd say it's very difficult given the map, but its not out of the question. And I would have said the same thing two years ago... if you would have asked me [then] could we get six seats a hundred days before the election. I would have said it is very difficult but it's not out of the question."

Schumer's proclamation comes as the Republican side of the aisle is running for political cover. GOP leadership has all but given the green light to vulnerable members to takes stances that differ with the party if it will help with their campaigns. Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is being drastically out-raised by its Democratic counterpart. Schumer highlighted five states as ripe for the picking -- Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska -- as well as six others that could be close: Oregon, Minnesota, Mississippi, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina. If nine seats were to change hands (and if the caucus allows Joe Lieberman to stay in its ranks), Democrats would have the filibuster-proof 60 that has long been viewed as a pipe-dream.

"We have had tremendous success recruiting," said Schumer. "And our candidates are proving to be even better than we thought. They are just a stellar group of people. They are smart, they tend to be non-ideological they tend to be mainstream and middle of the road. They are just what the doctor ordered in terms of winning elections."

Cognizant that the expectations game matters in the electoral process, Schumer later threw a wet blanket on the idea of an overwhelming Democratic landslide -- though it's hard, with the current diverging trajectories of the two parties, to take as sincere the Senator's warnings.

"So what's the bad news for us?" he asked, rhetorically. "The bad news in a certain sense, it's not bad news but it's a reality. So I call it bad reality. This is the reddest map in a very long time. The majority of seats we are seeking are in deeply red states. If you look at the thirty-five elections, two are in Wyoming and two in Mississippi. There are thirty-three states. But if you look at the map, the majority of states are either in deep south, great plains or the mountain west. Not traditionally positive areas for democrats. And of the Republican seats we are seeking, only three are in blue states, which are Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon, none of which are very blue states."

Additional reporting was provided by Bolu Adeyeye

The major Sunni sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge and subsequently helped lead the Anbar Awakening, was actually assassinated by an al-Qaeda led group in midst of the surge.

On Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the surge, when in fact the surge began months afterward. Moreover, he said, if it weren't for the work of U.S. forces, the major Sunni figure leading that awakening wouldn't have had the protection he needed.

"Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks," said the Senator. "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda," said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Sadly, that murder took place even with the surge underway. In September 2007, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik widely credited with persuading Sunni leaders to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, died in a bomb attack in Anbar. His work, prior to then, was held as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

It was in a September 2006 interview with UPI, when U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland first spoke about Sattar's efforts. "Some of the sheikhs have begun to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda," he said. His reference was Sattar, according to a Reuters article published upon the sheik's death.

Below is more from the Reuters article on Sattar's death:

"When U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, working in his Pentagon office last Thursday, heard that a tribal leader had been killed in Iraq's Anbar province, his first reaction was: "Please don't let it be Sattar."

His fears proved well-founded. A bomb had killed Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of a movement of Sunni leaders who turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, who are also Sunnis, and transformed Anbar from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

MacFarland is in a unique position to offer insights into the movement Sattar led and how it may develop without him. As a brigade commander in Iraq, he was present at the alliance's founding and worked closely with Abu Risha for months.

"I owe him a lot," MacFarland said. "He was a young guy with a great vision of the future and he was a fast friend of the United States."

With Barack Obama in the midst of his Middle East tour, the McCain campaign is making a concerted effort to cast him as a danger to the region. The latest attempt came on a conference call in which Congressman Peter Hoekstra, a hardline Republican, suggested that had Obama been president these past two years, the Syrian government would be measurably closer to achieving a nuclear weapon.

Referencing Obama's pledge to meet, unilaterally, with international leaders (both friend and foe), Hoekstra speculated that such a policy would have somehow jeopardized the October 2007 air strike that Israel launched against Syria's nuclear plant.

"By September the world knew that Syria at that time was building a nuclear plant clearly as part of the nuclear weapons program, that it was a North Korean design, and that it was uncertain as to where exactly the funding was coming from," said the Michigan Republican. "So when Senator Obama made those comments, there was a lot of activity going on and a lot of strategy that was designed to negate or limit the activities of North Korea, Syria and Iran.... With Syria we were clearly working closely with the Israelis in trying to identify the best course of action in how to deal with the emerging threat at that time. What Sen. Obama talked about was not having negotiations with these countries but having presidential negotiations unilaterally with the leaders of each of these countries and also saying he would do it with Cuba and Venezuela. He has set himself up for a policy direction that undercuts our allies and undercuts those who are working with us who are trying to restrain the activities of these countries."

The congressman was apparently unaware of the interview Obama gave on CBS the night before, in which he specifically said that he thought Israel's strike was legitimate.

"Yes, I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing-- a site using a nuclear-- or using a-- a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model," Obama said. "There was some concern as to what the rationale for that site would be. And, again, ultimately, I think these are decisions that the Israelis have to make."

Hoekstra also claimed that Obama's diplomatic approach would persuade every single controversial world leader to demand (and presumably) receive a presidential summit the day he took office.

"You can bet that on January 21 in the afternoon, that Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba will all invite then President Obama to visit," he said. "That would be an untenable position for the President of the United States to be put in, especially after he has made the commitment in his campaign that he would meet with these leaders unconditionally. It would undercut our allies and foreign policy and would put a Senator Obama, then President Obama, in a very weak position."

Oregon senatorial candidate Jeff Merkley admits that his race against incumbent Gordon Smith will be one of, if not the, closest fought this cycle. But Oregon's Democratic House Speaker isn't venturing toward the political center in an effort to pick up votes or protect himself against potential criticism. Rather, he's sticking to definitively progressive positions, whether on FISA, Iraq, trade, or environmental policy. And on occasion he's digging his party's presumptive presidential nominee for venturing away from those battles.

"We disagreed on FISA," Merkley said when asked how he differed with Barack Obama. "And I think we have an emerging difference on NAFTA, where I am very concerned about jobs being swept out of the United States by these trade treaties combined with tax policies, and I gather we were closely aligned but as we go to the general election here, we find that Barack is changing a little bit."

Merkley, who according to a very recent Rasmussen Reports poll has a slim 43-41 lead over Smith, said that a large portion of his campaign success would be predicated on the desire of Oregonians to shift the way Washington works. As such, he heaped praise on Obama for the type of campaign he has waged, predicting that the Senator would win Oregon by eight to twelve points.

But the majority of Merkley's interview with the Huffngton Post this past weekend was spent pinpointing areas in need of political improvement, even calling to task the Democratic-controlled Senate for not showing the requisite backbone.

"A major mistake has been not to force the Republicans to filibuster day and night on these issues," he said. "The public does not see that obstruction because they don't see on their televisions a senator on the floor of the senate going through the night reading out of a thick tomb of law, if you will, in order to block bills from being considered. We have to put that on show to the American public and show that it's unacceptable... And I am [prepared to start standing up]. FISA is a good example right there. I was proud of Senator Dodd and others for what they did. They lost the vote, but I'm proud of them."

A Oregon Democrat who spent time in D.C., Merkley won a hotly contested primary campaign against underdog Steve Novick that pitted - ostensibly - the party establishment (backing Merkley) against much of the netroots (in Novick's corner). And yet, Merkley's philosophical underpinnings seen tailor-made for the progressive community. In addition to being a fierce proponent of environmental protection and health care expansion, he is insistent that the United States withdraw troops from Iraq in an expeditious but responsible manner without any residual bases.

"We have turned a nation that while run by a terrible dictator was not an enemy of the United States at the time we invaded them and, in fact, was very hostile to al Qaeda [into] a California sized terrorist training camp," he said.

He argued that John McCain's Iraq policy was "absolutely" dangerous to the country and insisted that Congress had an imperative to investigate the Bush administration's politicization of the justice department even after the president left office. "I agree," that criminal proceedings should be on the table, he said.

He even weighed in on one of the thornier issues facing Democrats today: what to do about Sen. Joseph Lieberman, whose surrogacy on behalf of McCain has been infuriating to many elements of the party.

"It is very disturbing," Merkley said. "I was there in 2000 as a delegate when he was our vice presidential nominee. I remember losing my voice for him and Sen. Gore and I am really disappointed in some of the stances he is taking and I understand he is addressing the Republican convention. Essentially we need him as a clear member of the team and I hope that we see it that way after the election."

As for kicking him out of the caucus should he address the GOP convention in Minneapolis: "I will leave that to Sen. Reid," Merkley said.

The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem.

In an early morning press release, entitled "Obama on Genocide," McCain aide Tucker Bounds emailed reporters a quote from Obama's appearance in which the Illinois Democrat reiterated the cry "never again." He followed that quote with one taken a year ago from an interview that the Senator gave with the Associated Press in which he said that genocide or humanitarian crises were not a prerequisite for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq (a statement he has since walked back)

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."

The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:

"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

It's a heavy charge to make, not least because Obama had just wrapped up his visit to the Holocaust memorial. In addition, there are, for better or worse, outstanding implications when discussing genocide when it comes to Jews -- and the insertion of the issue into the presidential campaign will border for some, on the taboo. Moreover, on the topic of Iraq, Obama has said he would leave a residual force to intervene in potential humanitarian crises and that he reserves the right to intervene militarily with international partners in order to "suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

"I'd love to know more about Obama's residual force," said Goldfarb, when asked about it. "How big is it, where is it based, what is its mission, how long will it remain in Iraq? Nobody knows the answers to those questions, and I'd encourage the Huffington Post to inquire further with the Obama campaign."

UPDATE: Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), one of the most high-profile Jewish supporters of Obama, tells the Huffington Post that McCain's attack is "shameful" and "unconscionable."

++++

Here is the full press release:

Obama on Genocide

Obama today at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim 'never again.' And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Obama on July 20, 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now -- where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife -- which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

If there was ever a symbol of how vastly different the McCain and Obama campaigns are structured, it came in the form of their June fundraising numbers.

On the one hand, there is the presumptive Democratic nominee, running a campaign based largely on a bevy of small-time donors. As the Campaign Finance Institute noted, a "remarkable 65% ($30.8 million) of Obama's primary election money came in amounts of $200 or less ... more than any candidate has ever received in amounts of $200 or less in a single month."

On the other hand, there is the presumptive Republican nominee, running a campaign dominated by large contributions and an old-hat fundraising crew. "One-third of McCain's money in June came in amounts of $200 or less," reported the Campaign Finance Institute, "and 47% came in amounts of $1000 or more."

The national campaign finance watchdog group, Campaign Money Watch, unearthed perhaps an even more damaging number: there are 124 fundraisers who have now raised money for both President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain." These "bundlers," moreover, "have raised a minimum of $25.95 million for the Arizona Republican."

There are tactical as well as symbolic advantages to Obama's method of raising cash. The Senator not only has a bigger cushion of donors to rely on, he also has to spend less time courting them. In the process of raising over $52 million this past month, relatively few donors maxed out in their contributions.

For McCain, fundraising is a bit more problematic. The pool of contributors is smaller than Obama's and the Arizona Republican has to spend considerable resources tapping into them (hosting fundraisers, sending out direct mail, putting together high-end events, etc...) Since, however, the Senator only has two more months to go before opting into public funds, and since the RNC is picking up much of the slack, the issue may be more about image than process.

"Sen. McCain has been working hard to distance himself from an unpopular president, but he is relying on the same network of big money donors and fundraisers in his run for the White House," said David Donnelly, Director of Campaign Money Watch. "Given that McCain and Bush have both pulled water from the same well, it's hard to see how he would pursue policies other than those that have handsomely rewarded Bush's donors over the past eight years."